A Federal Court Brings Gay Marriage to Utah

Friday afternoon, a federal judge in Utah struck down that state’s gay-marriage ban, known as Amendment 3, which was passed in 2004, ruling that the provision violated a federal constitutional right to marry and failed to pass scrutiny on either equal protection or due-process grounds.

The court held that Utah’s law banning same-sex marriage was

unconstitutional because it denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court hereby enjoins the State from enforcing Sections 30-1-2 and 30-1-4.1 of the Utah Code and Article I, § 29 of the Utah Constitution to the extent these laws prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same sex.

Although today’s ruling was not widely anticipated, the case was being watched closely by same-sex-marriage advocates. This was the first ruling on a gay-marriage case by a federal court since the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act this summer. It seems to support the theory, held by many in the gay-rights movement, that the Court’s ruling would serve as a basis for federal courts to more readily declare state laws unconstitutional.

The decision was issued by Judge Robert J. Shelby, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2011 by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate in September of 2012. If the state decides to appeal, the case would be heard by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Shelby did not stay or delay implementation of his order, so same-sex marriage is now technically legal in Utah—at least until the state, if it wishes to do so, applies to the Tenth Circuit for a stay. For now, the decision makes Utah the eighteenth state to allow same-sex marriage.

The language of Shelby’s decision was notably broad, and even took aim at the argument, often deployed by anti-gay-marriage activists, that sanctioning same-sex unions somehow diminishes the sanctity or stability of marriage itself.

“Rather than protecting or supporting the families of opposite-sex couples,” the court wrote,

Amendment 3 perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same-sex couples are not now, nor ever will be, worthy of recognition. Amendment 3 does not thereby elevate the status of opposite-sex marriage; it merely demeans the dignity of same-sex couples. And while the State cites an interest in protecting traditional marriage, it protects that interest by denying one of the most traditional aspects of marriage to thousands of its citizens: the right to form a family that is strengthened by a partnership based on love, intimacy, and shared responsibilities. The Plaintiffs’ desire to publicly declare their vows of commitment and support to each other is a testament to the strength of marriage in society, not a sign that, by opening its doors to all individuals, it is in danger of collapse.

The decision comes just a day after the New Mexico Supreme Court declared that its own state constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry there. That decision had been anticipated for some time and was unanimous. But the Utah ruling suggests that even in more traditionally conservative states, federal judges can and will apply an emerging new standard, perhaps with unexpected, and sweeping, results.

Richard Socarides is an attorney and longtime gay-rights advocate. He served in the White House during the Clinton Administration and has also been a political strategist. He now oversees public affairs at GLG. Opinions expressed here are only his own. Follow him on Twitter @Socarides.

Richard Socarides is an attorney and longtime gay-rights advocate. He served in the White House during the Clinton Administration and has also been a political strategist. He now oversees public affairs at GLG. Opinions expressed here are only his own.